Mellowing out on the KJV

ExpandCollapse

New Member

I have come to the conclusion that I need to mellow out when it comes to the KJV.

Since becoming a new Chistian, I have been struggling with this issue. I have read all sorts of things from Brother Cloud and Jack Chick, and the message they have given is clear: if you don't use the KJV, then you are not a Christian.

But now, I realize that I cannot subscribe to this point of view.

I have found that my growth as a Christian has been hampered by subscribing too much to certain extremist views. One of these is in the area of the Bible. Now please, do NOT get me wrong here: the KJV is a fine translation, and I do believe that for its time, it was an excellent translation based on what they had in 1611.

But one of the things that I have come to believe now is that we Christians must not be afraid of legitimate biblical scholarship and the fact that we have better transcripts and a more accurate knowledge of the original languages. With this in mind, I find that I should not fear a more modern translation, as long as it is straight-up and legit. Yes, I am sure that there are terrible translations of the Bible out there on the market today, but I must be able to admit that there are very good ones, too. And if these translations are good, then I must say that the people who have done these translations are not secret Jesuits who are out to undermine God's Word.

So while I will always have my KJV, I must not fear the NKJV or the NIV. Besides, was not one of the points of the Reformation to have a Bible that was accurate and in the language that people can easily understand? I just may go out and get a NLT today.

ExpandCollapse

Administrator

Administrator

You have chosen wisely, Mozier! You will get flack from the "onlies", but I think you have hit a workable solution for yourself.

You will never please the KJVO crowd unless you use THEIR particular update of the AV1611. So don't worry.

And unless you want to become a caricature of fundamentalism (Cloud) or a mean-spirited bitter only (Chick) stay in the WORD OF GOD in a good English translation, not at either of those dear brother's sites!

I love and KJV1769. I've memorized over 2000 verses in it and quote from that store often in my preaching. So don't "dis" the AV161 (whatever update you prefer). But immerse yourself in some other good modern English versions to refresh your soul.

BTW, the position you've come to is call "F-R-E-E-D-O-M" and is not familiar territory to many who post on this forum!

It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery. Galatians 5:1NASB

ExpandCollapse

New Member

Sorry for my bluntness, sometimes I forget about...tact, that's it. You do have the right to choose whatever you want, but please don't allow Cloud and Chick to make that choice for ya. I respect and agree with alot of what these gentlemen say, but noone is perfect.

I have not read anything from them that says, "if you don't use the KJV, then you are not a Christian." If you have, please show me the material.

ExpandCollapse

New Member

Thanks for the apology. Rebel is right, though, I am on a journey that has seen me slip, repent, and grow. I hope you can understand that as well.

As for David Cloud and Jack Chick, you are correct; there is nothing in their literature that says right out, "if you are not KJVO, then you are not a Christian." But that is not quite what I said. What I meant was that there is a very strong implied message in their works that makes it clear to me that this is what they are getting at. Sort of a "if you are REALLY a Christian, then you will use the KJV only!" This, HomeBound, is what I am rejecting.

I am NOT rejecting, however, the KJV outright. I have my KJV, and I will certainly continue to use it on my Christian journey. I am, however, not going to follow a KJV Only path, for this is not right at all. I will use a KJV, and also perhaps something in more modern English (like a NLT --- it IS recommended by Billy Graham, you know! ) for some clarification of some parts. As well, I am getting off the idea of the Roman Catholic Church being the Great Whore of Babylon and all Roman Catholics going to Hell. I am sick of being angry at the Catholic Church all of the time.

ExpandCollapse

New Member

Mozier, I can/could maybe see what you are talking about. I myself hold the King James Bible to be the infallible, inerrant, perfect word of God, without error or contradictions. It is my final authority. I do believe people are saved through other versions, just like reading a tract. I also believe that there are Catholics out there that are saved also. BUT, I will never give up on the King James Bible. I encourage you not to give up either.

BTW, I believe Billy Graham is different in his views from the early Billy Graham. HE COMPROMISED.

ExpandCollapse

New Member

In reply to your post, there is one lesson I have learned from this forum: It doesn't really matter if you think the AV is a poor translation, or if you think it is OK, or if you think it is good, or if you think it is excellent, or if you think it is the BEST English version, or if you think it is the BEST version in ANY LANGUAGE - you'll have few problems with the majority of people on here. You can say it has many errors, several errors, a few errors, and almost no errors, and few will make a fuss. But the minute - yea, the very second - you claim it has NO errors, THEN you become "superstitious", a "heretic", and a "member of a cult". Believing all Bibles have errors is OK - we can maybe change this or that, re-translate the word to get it to agree with our theology better, and there is no absolute standard to which we must subject our views. It is also the TRADITIONAL view of the scholars. But if you put your faith TOTALLY in God's word; and if you have the AUDACITY to believe that he just MIGHT have perfectly preserved his word for us so we could have an absolute standard; then you will be subject to all kinds of criticism.

It's like Christianity itself - it's easy to belive there's truth in the words of Moses, Muhammad and Buddha; but hard to belive only Jesus spoke nothing but the truth. You can believe Jesus spoke a little truth, that he spoke a lot of truth, and that he spoke almost all the truth; but the MINUTE you say he spoke NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, then you have problems. You see, it implies that all those who disbelieved his words were wrong, so they get very defensive. Saying, "they all have some errors" is much easier, and won't get their backs up. But it won't be correct.

It is not for me to tell you what to believe - I admit I may be wrong on this issue (which is more than the other side ever does). But let me tell you one thing that is not wrong: If you abandon KJVOnlyism, you will only believe all 'Bibles' have errors. You will have less faith in the Bible than before. And that, to me, sounds much more like the Devil's whispers than the word of God...

ExpandCollapse

New Member

Consider for a moment a comment made recently that the KJBO position is based on superstition. The foundation for this assertion is based on this statement: “When faith stands in direct contradiction to fact then it ceases to be faith and immediately becomes superstition”.

Is this a biblical concept? Were there ever instances in the Bible when people were in a position that the facts contradicted their faith but the facts were wrong? Does the Bible give preference to historical fact over faith?

One of the primary definitions of superstition is a belief in the supernatural. I was discussing a program I saw on TLC about demon possession with a co-worker recently. This co-worker is a Lutheran. He claims to be Christian but knows little of what the Bible says. He asked me if I believed in demon possession. I answered yes. He then began to ridicule me for being superstitious. I promptly pointed out that Jesus cast out demons. Much to my amazement he did not even know this. He had little to say after I pointed this out to him. After looking up the definition for superstitious I realized the generally accepted definition would include me and other Christians.

The “fact” is that MVrs interpret the raw facts to mean that God preserved His words in “a multitude of varying manuscripts” and that “any reasonable [based on their preference of course] translation is the Word of God”. It is a fact there are a multitude of varying manuscripts, it is a fact there are many translations, and these are the raw facts. It is their belief (or faith), since they do not know the mind of God, that this mess is His will and His way of preservation. They present modernistic bias that they are in the know on the facts, and we follow superstition. The conjecture and posits of modern theoretical textual critics amounts to nothing more than the formation of 21st century superstition.

You see Mozier, many doubt the Bible today because of the facts. The Bible is literally chocked full of miracles that modern science says are not possible. All these things must be taken by faith. If you apply the same degree of scientifically factual rigor to many of the claims of the Bible, and if you believe that the body of evidence currently available is sufficient, you would conclude that it is nothing more than superstition. The “fact” is that the body of evidence currently available is not sufficient. I do not believe science or history has shown the Bible to be in error. I also do not believe the manuscript and church history evidence has shown what they believe either. All the facts are not in!!!. I would submit to you that if someone relies only on provable fact regarding these issues it will be impossible for them to please God.

Faith does not cease to become such when faced with fact, quite the opposite; faith is only tried and proven true when faced with fact. When Abraham took his son Isaac to sacrifice him, don’t you know Abraham knew it was a fact Isaac would die if he stabbed him with a knife. Abraham had to reject the facts, the wisdom of men and this world, which is usually what is presented as fact, to follow God in faith. Surely Noah, when faced with the fact that it had never rained, had a great deal of faith to build that enormous ark. These are but two very noteworthy examples of my point. God has in the past and still does for those that follow him, call us to reject the wisdom of this world, the facts of learned men, and rest on faith. This may be just foolish superstition to MVrs, but this is the fundamental basis of the relationship every true believer has with God.

The more I have debated this subject here, and the more I have read the arguments of MV proponents, the clearer it has become to me that they follow only the faulty facts and logic of man’s wisdom. Most MVrs seem to be convinced they follow the facts, and that the facts confirm their faith. Many times in the Bible we see the facts stood in opposition to faith. If there is one clear concept in the Bible, it is that those who follow the facts and logic of men are incapable of knowing what God is doing. This was the fundamental error of the Pharisees (1 Corinthians 1:20-21). By the wisdom of men the world did not even know God when he came in the flesh. Think about that for a moment. Put yourself in the place of the doubting Pharisee. Many of the messianic prophecies are not even clear Christians today (trust me, I’ve debated MVrs that don’t get them), imagine taking on faith this man was the messiah when many of the OT prophecies were not even fulfilled until His death. Can you imagine what a leap of faith that was? It was an insurmountable leap of faith for many of the Scribes and Pharisees who were essentially the Bible scholars and theologians of their time.

My counter assertion to the one mentioned at the onset is: “Faith does not cease to become such when faced with fact, quite the opposite; faith is only tried and proven true when faced with fact”. If anything, my interactions on the BB have confirmed what I have read and heard about modern scholarship. It is founded solely on the wisdom of men. I can tell by your posts you have just begun searching out this issue. If nothing else, this issue is not a waste of time; it will increase your knowledge of the Bible. I would encourage you to consider this issue, not just from a rationalistic standpoint presented here by the MVrs that is based solely on logic and perceived fact, but search your soul, pray, and keep an open heart to His leading.

ExpandCollapse

<b>Moderator</b>

Moderator

Originally posted by Bartholomew:But the minute - yea, the very second - you claim it has NO errors, THEN you become "superstitious", a "heretic", and a "member of a cult".

Click to expand...

Not only that, you become unbiblical and just plain wrong.

But let me tell you one thing that is not wrong: If you abandon KJVOnlyism, you will only believe all 'Bibles' have errors. You will have less faith in the Bible than before. And that, to me, sounds much more like the Devil's whispers than the word of God...

Click to expand...

Actually, this is a wrong statement. Being an almost exclusive user of MVs for almost seven years, I can say without doubt that my faith in God's word is stronger than it ever has been. In fact, I know of no one who has less faith after having switched to a modern version. The only people I know with less faith is those who are KJVOs who do not believe that God can and did preserve his word in modern translations for modern man.

Unfortunately, it is when people add to the doctrine of God's word that the problem enters in. The vast majority of us here stand against that and will continue to do so.

ExpandCollapse

New Member

Adding doctrines Larry? How about God sloppily preserving His general messages in a multitude of varying manuscripts disregarding specific wording? How's that for adding doctrine. Didn't God promise to preserve his words? Didn’t God say not to add or take away? I guess we have a choice to make; either believe your modern theoretical textual criticism view of preservation, or believe in divine preservation.

ExpandCollapse

New Member

Originally posted by Pastor Larry: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bartholomew:But let me tell you one thing that is not wrong: If you abandon KJVOnlyism, you will only believe all 'Bibles' have errors. You will have less faith in the Bible than before. And that, to me, sounds much more like the Devil's whispers than the word of God...

Click to expand...

Actually, this is a wrong statement. Being an almost exclusive user of MVs for almost seven years, I can say without doubt that my faith in God's word is stronger than it ever has been. In fact, I know of no one who has less faith after having switched to a modern version.</font>[/QUOTE]I never said one's faith can't grow with an MV. I said if one STOPS being KJVO, one goes from believing the Bible HASN'T any errors, to believing it HAS errors. This means you believe it LESS. There's no way you can deny that.

ExpandCollapse

New Member

Notice that Bob Griffin loves and use the KJB, and that he has memorized 2000 verses from it (Wow, go Bob). Listen, I believe the KJB is the preserved word of God, but I feel you have every right in Christian liberty to use whatever version you like. I have tried using them repeatedly and found them inadequate for me spiritually. Many of the MVrs here that make great professions for MVs still use, preach from, and memorize the KJB. Telling isn’t it. No, I believe in liberty, but I also believe in reaping what you sow. I think the Bibles today are for a modern unbelieving apostate generation. Now many good Christians may use them, but this does not change their nature. All the things occurring today with Christian rock, geometric increase in all objective measures of immorality, eradication of Christianity from public schools and government, parachurch organizations that will not endure sound doctrine, and finally, Bibles that create doubt in the mind of the believer with footnotes that question passages and render them differently between versions. I could go on. One point you should keep in mind, Cloud and Chick provide strong meat. Most cannot receive it just as most could not receive the words of the prophets of the Bible. I am not calling them prophets, but there certainly is a similarity. So when someone claims that being mean-spirited is a refutation of their Christian character I find that very questionable in light of scripture. I guess if these guys heard our Lord calling the Pharisees snakes and threatening them with hellfire and damnation they would have concluded He was not Christ-like either.

ExpandCollapse

<b>Moderator</b>

Moderator

Originally posted by Faith, Fact & Feeling: Adding doctrines Larry? How about God sloppily preserving His general messages in a multitude of varying manuscripts disregarding specific wording? How's that for adding doctrine.

Click to expand...

It doesn't qualify becuase it wasn't added. It is simply historical reality. "Added doctrine" means that someone teaches something that God did not teach. God did not teach that his word was preserved in one manuscript, one manuscript tradition, or one English translation of it. When someone teaches that, they have added to doctrine.

Didn't God promise to preserve his words?

Click to expand...

I don't argue with that.

Didn’t God say not to add or take away?

Click to expand...

Yes.

[qutoe]I guess we have a choice to make; either believe your modern theoretical textual criticism view of preservation, or believe in divine preservation. [/QUOTE]There is a third choice ... the unbiblical view of KJVO preservation. Divine preservation simply states that God preserves his word. No where in God's word has he told us how; it is only in man's word that we find those kind of statements made.

So the bottom line is, will you exalt man's words over God's?? I will not. I will teach what God has revealed. I will not teach anything else as dogmatic doctrine. When you show me the place where God said that he preserved his word in one English translation, then I will begin to preach that. Until you show me that, I will consider it only added doctrine, becuase that is what it is.

ExpandCollapse

<b>Moderator</b>

Moderator

Originally posted by Bartholomew: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Pastor Larry: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bartholomew:But let me tell you one thing that is not wrong: If you abandon KJVOnlyism, you will only believe all 'Bibles' have errors. You will have less faith in the Bible than before. And that, to me, sounds much more like the Devil's whispers than the word of God...

Click to expand...

Actually, this is a wrong statement. Being an almost exclusive user of MVs for almost seven years, I can say without doubt that my faith in God's word is stronger than it ever has been. In fact, I know of no one who has less faith after having switched to a modern version.</font>[/QUOTE]I never said one's faith can't grow with an MV. I said if one STOPS being KJVO, one goes from believing the Bible HASN'T any errors, to believing it HAS errors. This means you believe it LESS. There's no way you can deny that. </font>[/QUOTE]Wrong on several counts.

First, your statement "I never said one's faith can't grow with an MV" was not a part of the conversation. You said You will have less faith in the Bible than before.[/b] I pointed out that your statement was totally wrong. I have more faith in God's word after 7 years of MV use than I did before. That proves your categorical statement to be a false statement.

Second, your statement that "I cannot deny" is a statement that in fact I do deny. So you are wrong about my ability. But more to the point, you are simply wrong about the facts. Knowing that an English translation has an error is not a detriment to my faith. It is a recognition of the obvious. I do not believe the Bible has any errors in it.

Quick Navigation

Support us!

The management of Baptist Board works very hard to make sure the community is running the best software, best design, and all the other bells and whistles that goes into a forum our size.Your support is much appreciated!